Court: Firing an employee because she is transgender has to be sex bias under Title VII

What a long, strange trip it’s been for one particular transgender-discrimination lawsuit.

Back in 2014, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission used a Michigan funeral home and alleged it violated Title VII by firing an employee because of her transgender or transitioning status and her refusal to conform to sex-based stereotypes and administering a discriminatory-clothing-allowance policy.

Then things got weird.

The ACLU sought to intervene in the case, and the transgender employee became concerned that the EEOC couldn’t adequately protect her interests. (I blogged about that here.)

And then the EEOC did another backslide when it told the Sixth Circuit that its position on transgender rights might change once a new General Counsel was confirmed. (I blogged about that here.)

And then the Sixth Circuit dropped the hammer.

On the employer.

Yesterday, the Sixth Circuit ruled (opinion here) that the EEOC, and not the employer, should have been awarded summary judgment. Here’s the money shot:

Here, the district court correctly determined that [the employee] was fired because of her failure to conform to sex stereotypes, in violation of Title VII….The district court erred, however, in finding that [the employee] could not alternatively pursue a claim that she was discriminated against on the basis of her transgender and transitioning status. Discrimination on the basis of transgender and transitioning status is necessarily discrimination on the basis of sex, and thus the EEOC should have had the opportunity to prove that the [the employer] violated Title VII by firing Stephens because she is transgender and transitioning from male to female.

…

Here, [the] decision to fire [the employee] because [the employee] was “no longer going to represent himself as a man” and “wanted to dress as a woman,” … falls squarely within the ambit of sex-based discrimination….We therefore agree with the district court that the [employer] discriminated against [the employee] on the basis of her sex, in violation of Title VII.

…

It is analytically impossible to fire an employee based on that employee’s status as a transgender person without being motivated, at least in part, by the employee’s sex.

Got all that?

The Court took a Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins sex-stereotyping approach to resolve the issues of whether discrimination on the basis of transgender and transitioning status is necessarily discrimination on the basis of sex, which would violate Title VII.

CONTRIBUTOR:

Eric B. Meyer

You know that scientist in the action movie who has all the right answers if only the government would just pay attention? If you want a nerdy employment-lawyer brain to help you solve HR-compliance issues proactively before the action sequence, as a Partner of a national law firm, FisherBroyles, LLP, I’m here to help. I'm not only an EEOC-approved trainer, I offer day-to-day employment counseling, workplace audits and investigations, and other prophylactic measures to keep your workplace working while you focus on running your business. And for those employers in the midst of conflict, I bring all of my know-how to bear as your zealous advocate. I’m a trial-tested, experienced litigator that has represented companies of all sizes in a veritable alphabet soup of employment law claims, such as the ADA, ADEA, CEPA, FMLA, FLSA, NJLAD, PHRA, Title VII, and USERRA. I also help clients litigate disputes involving restrictive covenants such as non-competition and non-solicitation agreements, as well as conflicts over use of trade secrets and other confidential information. For more about me, my practice, and my firm, click on my full bio.